Selzler v. Bagley

• Decision Date: 21 January 1910
• Parties: SELZLER v. BAGLEY, County Judge.
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

19 N.D. 697

124 N.W. 426

SELZLER

v.BAGLEY, County Judge.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

Jan. 21, 1910.

Syllabus by the Court.

An application to this court for the issuance of a writ of prohibition directed to a county judge will not be entertained upon a showing merely of a refusal by the district judge to issue such writ. It is only in exceptional cases, involving questions of great public importance, that this court will exercise its prerogative powers in the issuance of writs to such inferior courts.

If the district judge refuses, without cause, to afford relief, or abuses his discretion in denying such writ, relator is not without remedy, but such refusal or abuse of discretion affords no ground for the issuance of such writ by this court.

The writ of prohibition will not issue in any case where there is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

Held, under the facts presented, that relator does not bring himself within such rule, as he possesses such remedy by appeal.

Prohibition by Michael Selzler against Horace Bagley, Judge of the County Court of McHenry County, of increased jurisdiction. Application denied.Butler Lamb, for petitioner. Christianson & Weber, for respondent.

FISK, J.

This is an original application to this court for the issuance of a writ of prohibition directed to the county judge of McHenry county, commanding him to refrain from taking any proceedings in a certain civil action commenced in his court.

The sole question attempted to be presented by the application is the power and jurisdiction of the county court to entertain an application to open and vacate a default judgment, rendered in such court, after the same has been transcripted to the district court. For obvious reasons hereafter stated we are not called upon to determine such question. While this court, no doubt, has power, under its general superintending control, over all inferior courts, expressly conferred by section 86 of the Constitution, to issue writs in proper cases to county courts, it will do so only in exceptional cases, and where questions of great public interest are involved. The application here made presents no such conditions. In the affidavit used as a basis for the application it is stated that the judge of the district court of the Ninth judicial district refuses to assume jurisdiction and to issue a writ of the nature here prayed for. If such refusal was an abuse of discretion, relator possesses an...